- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10833 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PERDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT PERDOOR, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576124 REPRESENTED BY PDO SMT. SUMANA K D/O SRI. SANJIVA RAO …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR; SRI. SUYOG HERALE. E., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. RATHNA D/O LATE GULABI BHANDARTHI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NEAR PERDOOR MELPETE BUS STOP PERDOOR POST AND VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576124 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADV, FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOSET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2025 ISSUING WARRANT TO THE RESTORE THE ROAD CONNECTING SCHEDULE A PROPERTY TO THAT OF SCHEDULE B PROPERTY AND THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2025 REJECTING THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO CLOSE THE EX.C. NO. 102/2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI, BY CONSIDERING THE MEMO DATED 27/03/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN (PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND G) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and set-aside the order dated 12.02.2025 issuing warrant to the restore the road connecting schedule ‘A’ property to that of Schedule ‘B’ property and the order dated 29- 03-2025 rejecting the memo filed by the Petitioner herein to close the Ex.C No.102/2022, passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, by considering the memo dated 27-03-2025 filed by the Petitioner herein (produced at Annexure-A and G). (b) Issue any other Writ or Order and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent - decree holder having filed I.A.No.6, the trial Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 passed the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 allowing I.A.No.6 by holding as under: “Case once again called out. ORDER The decree-holder has filed IA No.VI under Sec.151 of CPC, praying this court to issue intimation to the police to provide police aid to bailiff while executing the warrant and also filed I.A. No.VII praying this Court to issue order for assistance of surveyor attached to the ADLR office, Udupi for implementation of order of mandatory injunction. 2) The advocate for JDR has filed objection to IA No.6 and orally prays to reject the IA No.7. 3) Heard, perused. 4) In support of the application, the counsel for decree-holder filed memorandum of facts and submitted that, the warrant was unexecuted as JDR has obstructed the execution and gathered many people and also disputed the spot. The Jdr in his objection has contended that the property is not identified. The bailiff in his report dt.31- 01- 2025 has submitted that the warrant under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, is unexecuted for want of police aid and surveyor assistance. At this stage, it is just and necessary to peruse the provisions of Rule 220(2) of Chapter 21 of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, which reads as follows: “in execution proceedings if any warrant is returned unexecuted with an endorsement that police help is required, the court may consider the same and pass suitable orders, and in case, the court directs that police help is to be given it shall be the duty of the police authorities concerned to give needful help promptly.” Therefore, the police help can be granted to Bailiff while executing the warrant. 6) Now it is noted that, the bailiff has also sought the assistance of surveyor for identification of the property. Since the decree is in respect of mandatory injunction, therefore, the identification of property is necessary to execute the warrant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The IA No.VI filed under Sec.151 of CPC, and I.A. No.VII filed under Sec.151 of C.P.C., by decree holder are hereby allowed. Office to issue intimation to the SHO of Hiriadka Police Station to give police aid to the bailiff while executing the warrant. Further office to issue intimation to the ADLR, Udupi to give survey assistance to bailiff by providing registered surveyor to identify the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 property as per the decree of the court while executing the warrant. The decree holder shall bear the expenses of surveyor which shall be recovered as cost from the JDR. Office to reissue warrant if P.F. is furnished R/by 09-04-2025.” 4. Subsequently, the petitioner having filed a memo, the Executing Court rejected the memo by passing the subsequent impugned order dated 29.03.2025 which reads as under: “ORDER ON MEMO The JDR has filed memo praying this court to close/dismiss the execution petition as the JDR Panchayath has not altered the position of the road existing in the plaint “B” schedule property. In the memo it is submitted that, as per the decree passed in RA No. 74/2019 on the file of the Hon’ble II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, at Udupi, the JDR was directed to restore the road situated in the “B” schedule property to its original position as stood on 12-06-2006. The plaint “A” schedule property is land bearing Sy.No. 127/19. Plaint “B” schedule property is land bearing Sy.No. 127/22A, measuring 12 cents. The Commissioner of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in Writ Petition No.15851/2019 and 15850/2019, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 has submitted his report along with the sketch, stating that, there is a road in Sy.No. 127/22A situated behind the Panchayath Building. Based on the said Commissioner’s Report, the Hon’ble High Court passed the judgment, and has observed in page 13 of the said judgment, that there was no pathway or road to approach the property in land bearing Sy.No. 127/19. Further, on the basis of the judgment, the Hon’ble III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi has passed the judgment in OS No. 394/2014 by observing that, based on the sketch and Commissioner’s report as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, there is no approaching road to reach the plaint “A” schedule property, i.e., land bearing Sy.No. 127/19. Further, this Hon’ble Court had appointed the Surveyor to observe whether there is any road in Sy.No. 127/22A, measuring 12 cents, and the Surveyor has also observed that there is a road behind the Panchayath for approaching the property of the plaintiff. Therefore, submitted that, the JDR has not altered the position of the road. Hence, prays to close/dismiss the execution petition. The DHR has filed her objection and contended that, this memo is maintainable in the eyes of law or on merits. And it is filed only to drag the proceedings with a view to deny the DHR the fruits of the decree under execution. It is further contended that, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA No. 1146/2022 vide its judgment dated 18-09-2022 has dismissed the appeal filed challenging the decree in RA No. 74/2019 dated 16-04-2022. This judgment is came after the order in WP No. 15851/2019 and 15850/2019 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 judgment in OS No. 394/2014. Therefore, the memo filed by the JDR is against the judgment in RSA No.1146/2022. Hence, prays to dismiss the memo with cost. Heard. Perused. I have gone through the records. It is worth to note that, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in RSA No. 1146/2022 has dismissed the second appeal filed by the JDR herein challenging the decree passed by the Hon’ble II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and ACJM, Udupi and confirmed the decree. The JDR has not produced any stay orders in the above case. It is worth to note that, the order in WP No. 15851/2019 and 15850/2019 is passed with respect to interim orders i.e., earlier than the order in RSA No. 1146/2022. This executing court cannot go behind the decree. The JDR has not filed memo stating that, they have complied the decree in RA No. 74/2019. On the contrary, the JDR is denying the existence of the road which he cannot do before this court. The Bailiff has not submitted his report stating that, the suit road is restored in its original position as stood on 12-06-2006 in “B” schedule property as per the decree in RA No. 74/2019 dated 16-04-2022. This contention raised by the JDR in this memo previously raised by it on the applications filed by DHR for issuance of warrant to the Bailiff which was disposed as per order dated 20-12-2024. Therefore, it seems that, this memo is filed by JDR only to drag the proceedings and to see that, the decree of the court cannot be executed. The memo filed by JDR is meritless. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 Hence, warrants to be dismissed with heavy cost. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER The memo filed by JDR dated 27-03-2025 is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/-. Call on hearing date.” 5. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo enclosing copies of documents viz. communication dated 09.04.2025 addressed by the ADLR to the Executing Court, Sketch, police report etc., which have come into existence after passing of the impugned orders. It is therefore submitted that the Executing Court before whom the matter is posted on 27.03.2026 may be directed to prepone/advance the execution proceedings from 27.03.2026 to any convenient date during the week commencing 09.02.2026 and proceed further in the matter by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to file an appropriate memo with documents before the Executing Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – decree holder submits that in the event of the petitioner files a memo along with documents before the Executing Court, the respondents would make submissions before the Executing Court in this regard and the Executing Court may proceed further in the matter as expeditiously as possible. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition without interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with or disturbing the impugned orders. ii) The Executing Court is directed to prepone/advance the matter from 27.03.2026 to any convenient date during the week commencing 09.02.2006. iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to file advancement/preponement applications before the Executing - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5150 WP No. 10833 of 2025 Court to enable advancement/preponement from 27.03.2026 to any date during the week commencing from 09.02.2026. iv) Pursuant to the proceedings being preponed from 27.03.2026 to an earlier convenient date during the week commencing from 09.02.2026, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file appropriate memo along with documents before the Executing Court. v) In the event petitioner files such a memo along with documents the Executing Court shall provide an opportunity in this regard to the respondents and proceed further in the execution proceedings taking into account the material on record in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36